had not paid our debts, was because we had been too extravagant, [what would he have thought if he had lived in these days!] and that by industry and economy these debts could be paid; he saw no danger of the States remaining out of the Union till amendments could be adopted; he thought that Massachusetts, by adopting the Constitution, and then recommending amendments, had put the cart before the horse. He alluded to the observation that the civil power was defective; he knew not that it was so; that there were instances where men had been guilty of very great crimes, and, in consequence, put themselves out of the pale of civilized treatment, and referred to a person' who had been punished by an expost facto law. He spoke of the Constitution as endangering the liberties of the people, in its taxing power, the power it possessed over the militia and the army, its several arsenals, of its uniting the sword and the purse, of the corruption that might take place among the representatives and senators, and the federal court, particularly when the freedom of the CITIZEN should come in opposition to the laws of congress. He treated the explanation given by Mr. Madison of the mixed nature of the government (as we shall give in another place) with ridicule, and concluded by saying he should not give his sanction to that instrument; he, however, desired a union of the States, but not of the kind proposed. It was not the kind of government for which the American people had effected a revolution; it was not for making a great government, but for individual freedom they had contended. He said gentlemen may retain their opinions, but I shall look on that paper (meaning the Constitution) as the most fatal plan that could possibly be

'Josiah Phillips was the man alluded to. He was attainted by a bill passed by the legislature of Virginia in a very short time after he committed the act for which he was attainted.

conceived to enslave a free people! If such be your rage for novelty, take it and welcome; but you shall not have my consent.”

Mr. Henry, in his opening remarks, observed, all governments were a necessary evil, and he alluded to the ten miles square as being an attractive object to some minds; as if he thought that there were some in the country who were anxious to secure to themselves some high station in the government, and, for that reason, were anxious to change the form of government from a confederacy to such a government as was proposed, because it would open the door for a greater number of offices. [Whether such ideas entered into the minds of those who formed the Constitution we cannot say; but offices in these days appear to be very attractive.] In the increase of our army, and the alarming proposition to have the militia of the States under the control of the president; in the desire to spread slavery, and in the assertion that the Constitution guarantees slavery, or, which in effect is the same thing, that we have prevented the government from abolishing it, or provided no way by which it could be abolished, and at the same time have agreed to suppress insurrections, should we not take alarm, and see that the liberties of this country are not lost; and may we not see, in the servility with which many members of congress bow to the influence of slavery, cause to take warning? We think we should, and should bear in mind those observations made by Mr. Henry.

What could induce northern members of congress to gag the mouths of their own constituents but this desire for office, and this unholy influence, that slavery, the withholding the individual freedom of so large a portion of the inhabitants of our country, has so blinded the eyes of those that remain free they are beginning to lose sight of those principles on which true liberty is founded? and is it not wonderful a man could speak as Mr. Henry here does of individual rights, that the object of the revolution was not for making a "great government," but to secure "individual freedom," when he himself was a slaveholder, and opposed the Constitution in some of its parts, because in its effect it might destroy the power of the master, and which he feared would take away his supremacy? It seems impossible to explain such a course of proceeding; and it cannot be explained, unless you admit the colored people, in his eyes, were no people; and yet he did not think so. No! it must be put down to man's inconsistency, or, as he himself said, because he really feared true liberty would be endangered by letting the colored man enjoy the same advantages the white man did; he thought they would take advantage of their liberty and become licentious.

Mr. Lee, of Westmoreland, answered Mr. Henry he defended the Constitution; he referred to Shays's rebellion in Massachusetts, to the tender laws, and a variety of other circumstances, to show there ought to be a change in the government, and that those who desired it were as anxious

for liberty as those who opposed its adoption. He thought the idea of corruption in congress, and in the courts, imaginary; that the people had reserved to themselves all their important rights; that the Constitution was so constructed that "the rulers of the people were vested with certain defined powers, and that what was not delegated to those rulers was retained by the people; that the consequence of this was, that the limited powers were only an exception to those that were vested in the people; that they knew what they had given up, and could be in no danger." 1

What are these rights, of which Mr. Lee speaks, that are retained by the people? certainly not the rights of the States, for he speaks of the rights of the people. We can form no idea of any other rights than those of which Mr. Jefferson spoke in the Declaration of Independence; the inalienable rights of which every man is possessed, and which the people, in forming their government, retained it was not the liberty of the States of which he spoke.

Gov. Randolph also spoke in answer to Mr. Henry in defence of the Constitution. He alluded to what Mr. Henry had said in regard to Holland and Switzerland; he thought his objections and comparisons were not correct; and, though he had objections which he had given in a public letter, and which we have, in part, quoted in another place, yet he was anxious to have the Constitution

'Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 156.

adopted, because it would secure the liberties of the people. He said the coercive power of the Confederation was totally void, and that the people had long been convinced of it, and that this conviction was manifest to the world; that the general government ought to be vested with powers competent to our safety, or else the necessary consequence must be that we shall be defenceless.

"We are told, in strong language, of dangers to which we shall be exposed unless we adopt this Constitution. Among the rest, domestic safety is said to be in danger. This government does not attend to our domestic safety. It authorizes the importation of slaves for twenty-oneyears, and thus continues upon us that nefarious trade. Instead of securing and protecting us, the continuance of this detestable trade adds daily to our weakness. Though this evil is increasing, there is no clause in the Constitution that will prevent the Northern and Eastern States from meddling with our whole property of that kind. There is a clause to prohibit the importation of slaves after twenty years, but there is no provision made for securing to the Southern States those they now possess. It is far from being a desirable property, but it will involve us in great difficulty and infelicity to be now deprived of them. There ought to be a clause in the Constitution to secure us that property which we have acquired under former laws, and the loss of which would bring ruin on a great many people.”1 He concluded by saying he wished for amend

ments.

.

Mr. Randolph here says expressly there is "no clause in the Constitution to prevent the

Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 212.